Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the tool returns all uploaded resumes including primary and alternates, but it does not mention authentication requirements, pagination, or the effect of the includeRawTxt parameter on response size/content.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the action 'List your uploaded resumes,' and contains no redundant or unnecessary information. Every phrase contributes meaning.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a simple list tool with one optional boolean parameter, and the description adequately states the scope (all uploaded resumes) and output intent (returns resumes). It lacks a contrast with list_generated_resumes and does not describe the response format, but given the low complexity, this is fairly complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema fully documents the only parameter includeRawTxt with a default value, so the schema_description_coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with 'List your uploaded resumes,' which is a specific verb-resource pairing. It further clarifies scope by including 'primary resume and any alternate versions' and uses 'uploaded' to distinguish from the sibling list_generated_resumes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly implies use when the caller needs a list of uploaded resumes, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. Given the sibling list_generated_resumes, a direct contrast would have made the guidance more explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.